Jeffrey Alexander Mazariegos- Rodriguez v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JEFFREY ALEXANDER MAZARIEGOS-
RODRIGUEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 21-1327
Agency No.
A206-634-524
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 7, 2023**
Pasadena, California
Before: CALLAHAN, R. NELSON, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Jeffrey Alexander Mazariegos-Rodriguez petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) affirmance of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”)
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
DEC 11 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 4 --

2 21-1327
decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). “Where, as here, the
BIA summarily adopts the IJ’s decision without opinion pursuant to 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.1(e)(4), we review the IJ’s decision as if it were the BIA’s decision.”
Antonio v. Garland, 58 F.4th 1067, 1072 (9th Cir. 2023) (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). We deny
the petition.
1. Timeliness is a threshold requirement for asylum eligibility. Wakkary v.
Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1053 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B)).
The agency determined that Mazariegos-Rodriguez’s asylum application, which
was filed more than three years after he last entered the United States, was
untimely and that no exceptions to the filing deadline were met. Mazariegos-
Rodriguez does not challenge this dispositive finding and, thus, has waived review
of it before this court. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079–80 (9th
Cir. 2013) (stating that when a petitioner fails to contest an issue in his brief, it is
deemed waived). Because the untimeliness finding is dispositive as to
Mazariegos-Rodriguez’s claim for asylum, we do not resolve Mazariegos-
Rodriguez’s challenges to the agency’s alternative grounds for denying asylum,
including the finding that Mazariegos-Rodriguez’s asylum application was
frivolous. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing INS

-- 2 of 4 --

3 21-1327
v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (“As a general rule courts and agencies are
not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the
results they reach.”)).
2. The agency alternatively concluded that, even if Mazariegos-Rodriguez
had filed a timely, non-frivolous asylum application and were considered credible,
he was not entitled to asylum or statutory withholding of removal because he failed
to demonstrate past persecution, a well-founded fear of future persecution, or the
requisite nexus to a protected ground. Again, Mazariegos-Rodriguez does not
challenge these dispositive findings. Therefore, he has waived review of these
issues. See Simeonov, 371 F.3d at 538.
Because these unchallenged findings are dispositive of Mazariegos-
Rodriguez’s claims for asylum and withholding of removal, we need not consider
his challenges to the adverse credibility determination or to the determination that
his proposed particular social group was not cognizable. See id.
3. Substantial evidence supports the denial of CAT protection. The record,
including an unchallenged determination that Mazariegos-Rodriguez did not suffer
past persecution, does not compel the conclusion that it is more likely than not that
Mazariegos-Rodriguez would be tortured by or with the acquiescence of the
government if returned to Honduras. See Guo v. Sessions, 897 F.3d 1208, 1217
(9th Cir. 2018) (explaining that, for purposes of CAT relief, the concept of torture

-- 3 of 4 --

4 21-1327
is more severe than persecution) (citation omitted)); see also Delgado-Ortiz v.
Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that “generalized evidence
of violence and crime in Mexico [that] is not particular to [p]etitioners” did not
satisfy the petitioners’ burden).
PETITION DENIED.

-- 4 of 4 --